AU/ACSC/2016

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE

DISTANCE LEARNING

AIR UNIVERSITY

“THE WESTERN PACIFIC THEATER OF OPERATIONS: A BREWING SHOWDOWN”

by

Christopher N. George, Captain, NMANG

A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements

Proposal Advisor: Dr. Patricia Lessane

Project Advisor: Dr. Andrew Niesiobedzki

Maxwell AFB, AL

June 2016

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

ii

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author(s) and do not

reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense. In

accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the

United States Government.

iii

Table of Contents

Page

Disclaimer………………………………………………………………………………….. ii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………... iii-iv

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………… v

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………..vi

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. 1 Overview of the Study……………………………………………………............... 1 The Nature of the Problem………………………………………………................. 2 The Purpose of the Study………………………….………………………………. 3 The Research Question……………………………………………………………. 4 Research Methodology……………………………………………………………. 5 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………….. 6 Fertile Grounds for Conflict……………………………………………………….. 6 A Peaceful Rise? …………………………………………………………………... 6 American Pivot…………………………………………………………………….. 7 How We Will Fight ……………………………………………………………….. 7 The Air Sea Battle ………………………………………………………………… 8 BACKGROUND………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Brief Historical Context Post WWII………………………………………………. 10 Military Downsizing in PACOM………………………………………………….. 11 The Economic/Military Rise in China…………………………………………….. 12 CHINA-THE DRAGON IN THE ROOM………………………………………………… 14 Military Conflict-Peer/Near Peer Adversary………………………………………. 14 China’s Expanding Territory………………………………………………………. 19 Can the US Cooperate with China on Security Matters in the Region…………… 22 ANALYSIS ……………………………………………………………………………….. 24 Why it Matters……………………………………………………………………... 24 COURSES OF ACTION Stay the Course…………………………………………………………………….. 25 Diplomatic Solutions………………………………………………………………. 26 Military Engagement………………………………………………………………..26

iv

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions………………………………………………………………………… 27 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………. 28 Endnotes…………………………………………………………………………………….31 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...33 Table of Appendices Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: US China Military Spending Comparison………………………………………..15

Figure 2: Current South China Sea Claims…………………………………………………20

Figure 3: US/China Military Numbers…………………………………………………….. 27

vi

ABSTRACT

The United States (US) has had a military presence in the Western Pacific for well over a

century and for the past three quarters of a century has had zero impedance from other nations in

regards to who controls the Pacific Ocean. Over the past quarter century the Nation of China has

blossomed both economically and militarily. China has claimed exclusive rights to territory that

has been disputed for thousands of years. Within this territory are vast expanses of premier

fishing grounds, untapped natural resources and shipping lanes that account for over half of the

world’s merchant shipping along with other resources such as natural gas and oil. China has

expanded its military footprint well beyond the 12 mile territorial limit as described by the Law

of the Sea to which 162 countries are signatories. With China’s increased military presence in the

region it can be argued that the US has lost regional influence and diminished military

dominance in the region. This research will look at what the US needs to do to regain influence

and prestige within the Asia Pacific area of operations.

A problem/solution method will be utilized to answer the aforementioned question and

what will be required by the US to achieve these objectives. Can the US and China cooperate

against mutual adversaries and how will US military technology perform in a potential matchup

with China’s newest and most advanced weaponry? China is preparing for the future by being

proactive to protect their own interests despite international backlash against their actions. As

the US and the world focus their attention to the Asia Pacific for the foreseeable future, there are

serious ramifications should concerned parties misinterpret intentions.

1

INTRODUCTION

“This is the future we seek in the Asia Pacific -- security, prosperity and dignity for all. That’s what we stand for. That’s who we are. That’s the future we will pursue, in partnership with allies and friends, and with every element of American power. So let there be no doubt: In the Asia Pacific in the 21st century, the United States of America is all in”.

Barack Obama,

President of the US1

Overview of the Study

The US has had a dominating presence in the Asia Pacific region for the past three

quarters of a century with minimal challenges to that dominance after Japan’s defeat in World

War II. US military installations were strewn across the Pacific to ensure global reach and global

power. With technological improvements such as jet aircraft and midair refueling the cost

savings associated with these advancements enabled the US to downsize its footprint in the

region. With the US military footprint getting smaller it can be argued that our influence and

dominance in the region has also diminished. With the rise of China, the US now faces a near

equal challenger in the region. China is rapidly becoming an influence in regional affairs in the

Western Pacific, most notably the South China Sea (SCS). With this economic and military rise,

it is paramount now more than ever that the US still maintains its responsibility to its strategic

partners and friends in the region to preserve peace, stability and freedom of navigation in the

Asia Pacific.

2

The Nature of the Problem

The US has lost a modicum of dominance in portions of the Western Pacific Theater of

Operations since the end of WWII. Over the course of the past quarter century the US

Department of Defense has taken for granted the military superiority the US has enjoyed by

reducing our footprint in the region, closing installations and employing more of an

expeditionary forces model in the region. The National Defense Policy has focused our time,

effort and monies on other theaters of the world, while reducing our defense expenditures in the

Western Pacific region over the past several decades. During this same time frame China has

increased their defense budget and territorial real estate in the Pacific. Some critics have claimed

that the US has an advantage over all other militaries in the Pacific based on our defense

spending, technological advantages and lack of any real challenge in the region. This theory has

never been tested, as the US had not had any engagements with near peer adversaries in recent

time. China continues to expand economically and militarily as they yearn to be an equal to the

US on the world stage. The US needs to mitigate the emerging threat from China by increasing

diplomatic and economic relations with China, while preparing militarily if diplomacy fails.

In recent years, the freedom of movement the US has enjoyed in the Western Pacific has

been impeded by China. As China becomes more of an economic and military power on the

world stage, they have flexed some of their territorial muscle in the East and SCS region and are

laying claim to disputed territory. As part of this strategy, they are expanding their global reach

and influence, both militarily and geographically. Part of China’s expansion includes the creation

of landmasses upon reefs in the SCS specifically for the purpose of military operations. China is

actively fielding advanced technology in this expanded area for early detection capabilities to

alert Chinese military officials of other nations who are operating in the area2. This presents a

3

problem for the US due to our reliance upon air superiority and dominance of the skies when

engaged in air to air combat.

With anti-access/area-denial technology (A2/AD) further away from the Chinese

mainland, it is more difficult to surprise our adversaries should a conflict break out. “Air

superiority is the absolute precondition for air power being freely utilized in air-to-ground

missions” 3and to support the US in its military objectives. A recent national strategy paper

published by Chinese military officials outlines that their destiny is interrelated with the world as

a whole and “China’s armed forces will remain a staunch force in maintaining world peace”4.

China’s actions have put the US in a position where they are challenging US presence in

disputed territories. This is a position the US has not faced and will ultimately alter the Tactics,

Techniques and Procedures (TTP’s) military personnel utilize while in the region. By China

increasing its military footprint and economic influence in the region, the US will have to

increase its military spending and cooperation in the region beyond what is currently in place.

This will be necessary to maintain a logistical chain sufficient to support enduring military

operations should conflict break out.

If the US fails to develop additional relationships and military support agreements in the

region, the days of ‘island hopping’ akin to World War II may become prevalent again. Island

hoping is where the US established a line of overlapping islands in the Pacific to stage military

operations. This process continued until Allied forces had control of enough islands to sustain

large amount of forces and a logistical chain to support the fight against the Japanese Empire.

While the US does have agreements with several nations in the Asia-Pacific Region, it is

unknown if those nations would allow military operations out of their air and sea ports if armed

conflict broke out. The Problem is that China is currently building economic and military ties

4

with nations around the world to extend its global influence. China is currently the largest

exporter of merchandise in the world. With labor rates much cheaper among other factors,

companies from all over the world have flocked to China to capitalize on their bottom line5 The

problem is much more complex than lower labor costs, but the trend will continue until the US

Government changes its tax code for businesses, which are currently the highest in the world at

39%6. Until that time comes when corporate tax rates are changed, China will continue to be one

of the countries that benefits when American companies decide to pick up and move off shore.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to look at what the US can do to regain military influence in

the Western Pacific Theater of Operations. The Unified Combatant Command who has a daily

presence in the area and assures our neighbors and strategic allies that the US is ready and

willing to engage should the need arise is the US Pacific Command (PACOM). The Pacific

Command is one of six geographic Unified Combatant Commands for the US military, and

includes nearly half the world’s surface area, stretching from the west coast of the US to the

western border of India, spanning Antarctica to the North Pole. Included in this area is more than

half the world’s population, and an economic engine which includes two of the largest

economies in the world.7 Currently there are approximately 330,000 forces from all branches of

the US military in the region to protect and defend American interests. This number is

anticipated to rise in the coming years due to a pivot or rebalance towards the region.

The Research Question

The world is a rapidly changing environment, with the interconnectivity of the human

race and the 24-hour news cycle, nothing happens in one part of the globe without the other side

knowing about it almost instantaneously. The issue is not the lack of information or the

5

intelligence sharing amongst partner countries. The US and China know what each other are

doing by utilizing their extensive intelligence resources; the issue is lack of trust. If the trust and

communication between countries can be strengthened the possibility of conflict can be reduced.

Therefore the research question for this study is “How can the United States re-gain military

influence with our strategic partners and allies while gaining cooperation with China in the

Western Pacific Theater of Operations”?

Research Methodology

This research study will utilize the problem/solution framework to provide a possible

course of action for the nation’s defense for the Western Pacific. The research will look at the

historical background of the issue. This background will demonstrate that the Chinese and others

in the Asia Pacific region have been contesting real estate for many centuries but no one has

made any measurable progress towards backing up their claims. Now that China is a rising

power in the world and making measurable progress on their claims it is now more important

than ever to substantiate why the Western Pacific is vital to our national security interests. The

research will then look at the actions that resulted in the United States’ steady decline in the

region and what is needed to become relevant again. The paper will then look into the new policy

regarding the Obama Administration’s “Pivot Towards Asia/Pacific Region”. The paper will

explore the ramifications for inaction and the consequences for national security. The paper will

then conclude with recommendations on how to bolster our credibility in the region without

instigating a conflict with China.

6

LITERATURE REVIEW

Fertile Ground for Conflict

The situation in the South China Sea is changing on a daily basis. The media stream

throughout the region follows each side and chronicles the moves they make. China continues to

build landmasses upon reefs for military purposes and the US send freedom of navigation

mission’s right outside the twelve nautical mile zone to dispute their claims. The points of

contention are vastly different depending on what side of the issue you are being exposed to.

Adam Liff and John Ikenberry both specialists in international affairs are just a few of the voices

who have noted that the Asia Pacific region is fertile ground for military competition and

conflict. This fertile ground for competition is highlighted by the fact that by the year 2020 the

US Navy and Air Force will have 60 percent of their forces in the Western Pacific. If China

continues to grow economically, so too will their bullying antics in the South China Sea along

with their Anti-Access/Anti Denial technology. China is attempting to make the Western Pacific

a “no-go” zone to transit without their knowledge or permission for such movements. This

emerging issue is evident by the military expenditures of Asia pacific nations, most notably

China. The vast amount of resources being poured into military equipment and technology in the

region is creating a security dilemma that will not be resolved anytime in the near future. The

outcome of this dilemma is vitally important for the economic and strategic future of the region.

The situation in the Western Pacific presents concerns for the entire world and there are drastic

repercussions should one side prevail over the other.

A Peaceful Rise?

The Chinese Government claims that their actions are peaceful in nature and are geared

towards economic development and shared prosperity along with other nations of the world.

7

China maintains that it will pursue an independent foreign policy that opposes power politics,

expansion and hegemony. The Chinese will build and maintain a strong national defense while

maintaining its sovereignty of home and developmental interests. They will maintain a no “first

use” policy on strategic weapons. President Xi is implementing a new strategic role for China in

world affairs and this policy is presenting challenges for the United States in the region.

Suisheng Zhao, Professor and Director for the Center for China-US Cooperation at the Josef

Korbel School of International Studies at Denver University argues that there cannot be one sole

superpower in the region and that all parties must work together for the economic and security of

the region. The only other alternative would be what Zhao deems a new Cold War, Zhao

explores the topic of working in a cooperative fashion in the region to ensure all sides goals and

objectives are met. With the China and the US working in a cooperative fashion, world peace

and economic stability and will be assured.

American Pivot

President Obama States that the United States is at a “moment of transition”, with ending

wars in Iraq, winding down operations in Afghanistan while attempting to jumpstart the

economy and get the US’s fiscal house in order. The defense challenges that America faces will

include the security and the economic growth of the Asia Pacific region. The 2012 DoD

publication lays out a roadmap for the transformation of the Department of Defense (DoD) over

the next decade and the strategic direction for the Western Pacific. This new direction includes a

focus on the economic and military growth among many Asia Pacific nations. The publication

does not account for sequestration cuts that have decimated some of the programs within the

DoD and that it downplays China’s emerging world power status.

8

How We Will Fight

While all nations strive for peace they must be prepared for war, Jan Van Tol and others

debate the fact that if a conflict broke out in the South China Sea between China and the US,

there would be significant operational issues that the US military would face. The technological

advancements of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) will make the US strategic advantage it has

had in the region for six plus decades negligible. Jan and others explore the steps the US must

take in order to maintain a balance for Air and Sea power in the region. This exploration of

means to achieve objectives includes the necessity for an Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept that will

require joint coordination between all military services. The US military has continuously

evolved to meet new and emerging threats throughout history. The newest concept to reduce risk

across the spectrum of operations is to thwart the advancing enemy capabilities by using a

combination of TTP’s. The ASB concept was borrowed from the cold war era Air Land Battle in

which we would counter Soviet attacks in Europe. The concept was designed to degrade rear

echelon forces before they could do damage to our forces. The ASB concept differs from the Air

Land Battle by operating in all domains of warfare (air, land, sea, space and cyberspace) utilizing

joint forces. The rapid development of military technology will continually require adjustments

to both sides’ strategic aims.

The Air Sea Battle

Should conflict break out in the Western pacific the only way the US will be victorious is

by utilizing the Air-Sea Battle concept. The ASB concept was conceptualized by the Department

of Defense (DOD) and has been a theory that has continually changed along with the weapons

and technology that we use today. As a nation the US has continually changed our Tactics,

Techniques and Procedures (TTP’s) to meet new and emerging threats throughout time. The

9

newest concept to reduce risk across the spectrum of operations is to thwart or destabilize the

advancing enemy capabilities. The ASB concept was borrowed from the cold war era Air Land

Battle in which we would counter Soviet attacks in Europe. The concept was designed to degrade

rear echelon forces before they could do damage to our forces. The ASB concept differs from the

Air Land Battle by operating in all domains of warfare (air, land, sea, space and cyberspace)

utilizing joint forces. This document is a more recent publication than the 2010 Center for

Strategic and Budgetary Assessments document demonstrates the rapid pace of technology

advancement within the theater and what steps the US needs to take to stay one step ahead of the

Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

BACKGROUND

Brief Historical Context End and Post WWII

The relationship between China and the US has not always been as tense as they are in

present day. In the early years of World War II, China was at war with Japan and a member of

the Allied Powers. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, China and the US worked closely together to

thwart their common enemy Japan. On January 3, 1942, a unified coalition of Allied Powers

was established to better coordinate and plan operations against the Axis powers. President of

China (ROC) Chiang Kai-shek reluctantly agreed to President Roosevelt’s plan to take command

of the entire Chinese Theater, which included Thailand, Vietnam and Burma.8

With the US in control of the entire Pacific Theater, the planning, coordination and

employment of military force was streamlined with the assistance of the coalition. As the war

grinded on, problems began to show up in the China Theater, supply lines were becoming

ambushed by Axis powers along with communist insurgents. This caused disruption in the US

logistical flow resulting in mission degradation within this theater. The major Heads of State for

10

the Allied Power met in Cairo in the winter of 1943, to discuss the progress of the war. This

meeting became known as the Cairo Conference and put into play many issues at the heart of the

current SCS issue. President Roosevelt, President Kai-Shek and Prime Minister Winston

Churchill engaged in several days of meetings, discussing topics such as the future of Asia,

logistics and ensuring China that

“Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the First World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”9

With the proclamation that China would gain all of its lost territory back, China and

President Kai-Shek, walked away from the Cairo Conference with their heads held high and

victorious. The boisterous attitude and circumstance surrounding the Cairo Conference was short

lived, Kai-Shek had bigger internal problems to include increasing battles between communist

leaning factions and his own political party with accusations of political intimidation and

violence against individuals and organizations not supportive of the Shek Government. The

communist leaning factions eventually formed a formidable group to fight China’s true enemies

the US and Japan.10 During subsequent meetings between Allied Powers (Tehran and Yalta

Conferences) China was notably absent, this was due in part to the fact that the meetings focused

on the Eastern Front, but several key decisions took place in China’s absence. The most notable

of these decisions was put into action at the Tehran Conference where President Roosevelt,

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin agreed on the principle that if the

Soviet Union declared war against Japan after Germany was defeated, the Soviet Union would

receive material support and access to several seaports in Manchurian and Dairen,11 all located

within China’s boarders. This decision was a betrayal in the eyes of China because they were

11

never consulted regarding the seaport exchange. This ultimately led to the downfall of the

Nationalist Chinese party.

Upon Japan’s surrender in September of 1945, popular support for communists was

increasing. Numerous segments of the Chinese society were leery of wartime corruption and

silencing of communists in Nationalist held territory. China’s communist party under the

leadership of Mao Zedong was engaged with Kai-Shek’s Nationalists in an all-out civil war for

control of the country.

An American mission was established in China to assist the Chinese with various military

matters in an advisory role. The end goal of the mission would be to ensure Chinese forces

would be “capable of coping with any situation that may confront China.”12 Ultimately the

mission and the American goal to establish a collation government failed. On October 1, 1949 in

Tiananmen Square, Beijing, Mao established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) while Kai-

Shek and his followers fled to the island of Taiwan and established a government there under the

parameters on the 1947 Constitution of China.13

Military downsizing in PACOM

In the aftermath of WWII, the United States was the undisputed dominant power in the

Western Pacific. Security agreements were set up with partner nations around the Pacific. Of the

more notable agreements in place for the southern Pacific include the agreement between the US,

Australia and New Zealand, which was signed on September 1, 1951. The agreement stated that

any armed attack on any of the partner countries would be dangerous to peace and safety and that

all signatories would respond to meet the common danger. Other important agreements include

the Philippine Treaty, the Republic of Korea Treaty and the Southeast Asia Treaty all of which

were signed in the 1950-1954 timeframe. The final notable treaty put in place for the Asia-

12

Pacific region was the 1960 Japan Treaty. All the aforementioned treaties have similar language

that focuses on defense against armed attack, in the region14. These agreements are still in place

today and are a cornerstone of the US’s strategic umbrella for our partner nations.

With the end of the war, many of the atolls such as Johnston and Palmyra that the US had

used as part of its island hopping campaign were shuttered and abandoned. Other atolls such as

Midway and Wake were held in dormant status and reactivated for the Korean and Vietnam

Wars. The mainstays of the PACOM were the hubs of Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. All of

these locations had representation from all branches of service and played a vital part in the, US

power projection for our allies and friends in the region. As with any operation the political will

and cooperation of the host nation is required to continue partnerships and strategic goals. This

became evidently clear in the early 1990’s when the government of the Philippines did not renew

the basing agreement for Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay Naval Base. The eruption of Mt

Pinatubo further complicated the situation as Clark Air Base suffered extensive damage. With

the pullout of US forces from the Philippines it added to the decline of US influence in the

region. Masashi Nishihara, an analysis of security policies in the Pacific was quoted “Without

bases in the Philippines, I don’t think there is any question that the US influence in Asia will

decline.”15

The Economic and Military Rise of China

After the PRC was established the Government of China adhered to the traditional

principals of a communist government; centrally controlled government ownership, stagnant

economy and relatively isolated from the rest of the world.16 The economic powerhouse vision

that Mao envisioned was taken to the grave with him. Mao’s replacement, Deng Xiaoping

pursued a new ideology regarding China’s economy; he instituted new programs and

13

philosophies in order to develop China into a world economic power. Xiaoping’s basis for this

economic revolution was based on principals of industry, agriculture, defense and science and

technology.17 While the country still adhered to communist principals the economic vision was a

hybrid of western ideology of free market principals and competition. Xiaoping had the belief

that it did not matter what economic policy (socialist or capitalist) the country adhered to, what

mattered was if that specific policy would boost the economy18 Entire sections of the Chinese

countryside were transformed into economic development zones where free market theories

could be tested. The Chinese government started to offer tax incentives and discount labor to

outside investment firms and what started as a small spark eventually turned in to one of the

world’s largest economies. The transition of China into a major player on the economic stage did

have its repercussions here in the US The cost of labor in China was a fraction of what is was

here at home and numerous American manufacturing companies closed their doors and headed

east to boost their financials.

With China being a superpower on the economic stage and vast amounts of revenue

pouring into their coffers, the Chinese Government invested massive sums of money into their

military machine. In 1989 the Chinese Government had a published military budget of less than

five billion dollars. The most recent figures that were published by the Chinese government put

the figure between 121-130 billion dollars19. Many military leaders around the world believe this

figure to be on the low end of the spectrum based on internal assessments and think tank

research. This military spending spree had has continued for nearly a quarter of a century, and

we are now seeing the fruits of their labor. China has introduced a slew of new and upgraded

weapons systems to all segments of the PLA while investing heavily in the areas of advanced

technology, space and cyberspace.

14

One of the most heavily invested areas of defense for China is their Anti-Access/Area

Denial platforms (A2/AD). The investment in A2/AD resources has left the US scrambling for

ways to counter the new threat. China has pushed these technologies further out from the

Chinese mainland and they now pose a threat to US fourth and fifth generation fighters and the

heart of our navy, the aircraft carrier. Another developing A2/AD project that China is actively

working on is the “Guam Killer”, which is essentially a ballistic missile that has been fitted with

conventional warheads, reports also state that the Guam Killer has anti-ship capabilities as well.

While the missile is not new, it enables the Chinese to target Guam and with conventional

weapons20. China’s advanced counter maritime and counter air systems are designed to meet and

or exceed the capabilities of our most modern military technology. China is actively fielding

ballistic missiles designed to target military facilities in the region and, ultimately disrupt the

American power projection that had been unopposed for half a century.21These improvements in

the layered defense of the Chinese mainland has disrupted the US power projection platform to a

point where rethinking of the expeditionary forces model is put into question. Any potential

conflict that occurs in the Western Pacific will play into China’s favor based on geography and

the expansion of their A2/AD resources. While the US still maintains a technological advantage,

that advantage is shrinking on a yearly basis. As the US and China become near peer adversaries

the question remains, what would a potential military match up look like and is cooperation

between the two countries out of the question?

CHINA-THE DRAGON IN THE ROOM

Military Conflict-Peer/Near Peer Adversary

Si vis pacem, para bellum-If you want peace, prepare for war. This Latin adage has been

passed down from warriors for centuries and still holds true today. Should the US and China

15

become involved in a military conflict, the outcome could surprise many who have debated this

hypothetical matchup for years. The US spends more on national defense on an annual basis than

any other nation; China now sits in second position on the military spending chart although the

numbers provided by the Chinese government are believed to be significantly lower than what is

actually being spent22. It is difficult to interpret the difference in the budget projections by the

Chinese but on possible explanation could be the dual use of technology. One such program that

is dual use is their space program which is heavily geared towards military usage.

23

Over the past quarter century as the US was engaged in expeditionary movements and the

War on Terrorism in the Middle East, China was slowly moving from a costal defense force in

the region to a regional military power, increasing military at an average of over 9% per year for

the last decade24. The technological improvements in all aspects of their military now make

them a viable threat to the US in the Pacific. China’s increased military spending can be directly

be tied to their increasing rhetoric and provocative actions in the SCS.

16

One area that has many defense officials deeply concerned is the Chinese space program.

It is a rapidly advancing program that will take an armed conflict into space by knocking out an

adversary’s military space capability. What is known about that program is that there is little to

no separation between the civilian space and the military space programs. The programs utilize

many of the same facilities and share information that benefits the state. This concern is based on

the fact that as China expands its physical territory it allows for ground-based stations to

communicate with its extensive array of satellites in orbit. This network allows greater strand off

distance and early warning for Chinese defense officials and precision strike capability.25

China’s anti-satellite capability is among the best in the world and they currently have a wide

array of killer satellites in orbit. This capability alone poses a grave threat to the US military as

many of our weapons systems rely on GPS guidance and communication26.

Like the US Armed Services, China’s military branches are structured in a similar

fashion, to defend the land, sea and air and project power if necessary around China’s interests.

All of these branches are under the grand umbrella of The People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The

branches are composed of the people Liberation Army (PLA), Peoples Liberation Navy (PLAN),

Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the Second Artillery Force which is command

and control for China’s nuclear deterrent. China also has a national police force and a force that

is similar to our National Guard and reserve forces.

The PLA is similar to the US Army as it is the home of the highly mobile and agile land

armor forces. The army includes units that protect the thirteen thousand mile land boarder and

the nine thousand miles of coastline27. The PLA has a total strength of approximately 850,000

troops and is changing its structure to be more maneuverable, utilizing advanced technology in

its offensive and defensive capabilities.

17

The PLAN is where a large portion of China’s defense budget is going to. As they

transition from a costal navy to a regional and eventually blue sea navy the costs associated with

such a move are substantial. The Office of National Intelligence states “China’s force

modernization has concentrated on improving the quality of its force, rather than its size.”28

Some of the improvements that the PLAN has made include retiring older legacy ships that were

designed for a single purpose and replacing them with multi-dimensional ships. China’s modern

fleet is capable of long-term deployments and operations with minimal support of a dedicated

port. Additional advancements include the integration of A2/AD capabilities with their ground

platforms on various atolls in the SCS29. Part of this A2/AD integrated system is the key to all

modern navies, the aircraft carrier. China purchased and refurbished an ex-Ukrainian aircraft

carrier, to become the first carrier in China’s fleet. The carrier is obsolete when compared to US

carriers but it does give the Chinese additional reach from its home shores. Their carrier is diesel

powered and does not have catapults to launch aircraft from the deck. Defense analysts claim

that that the carrier is a starter carrier and China will eventually produce an organic carrier

comparable to US and or Russian carriers30.

The PLAAF is also going through a time of growth and modernization to counter other

nations developing air forces. China relied heavily on the Soviet Union and Russia to field its air

force throughout much of the nation’s history. Their fleet includes various models of the MiG

and Flanker family, which are still in use today. What China has become an expert at doing is

incorporating designs (stealing) from other countries without the development cost.31 China’s

organic military aircraft development is increasing and the similarities between Russian and US

designs are unavoidable in the new Chinese fleet32. China is developing a fifth generation fighter

to be comparable to the US F-22 and F-35. The Chinese J-31 Gyrfalcon is strikingly similar in

18

looks and dimensions to the F-35 and many have claimed that the Chinese government obtained

blueprints to the F-35 in a 2009 hacking attack on Lockheed Martin. Keith Alexander, the head

of US Cyber Command stated, “Chinese military and commercial cyber theft amount to “the

greatest transfer of wealth in history.33” Another fifth generation fighter that China is currently

developing is the J-20, initial reports state that the J-20 will have the ability to be a long-range

strike fighter and rival that of the F-2234. There is also talk of another case of industrial

espionage regarding the J-20 as it does have some similarity to the front section of an F-22.

China has also recognized the force multiplying capabilities of Remote Piloted Aircraft (RPA’s).

They are actively using, developing and marketing RPA’s around the world and will likely

become the leading global exporter of such systems. RPA’s use in the PLA will extend their

influence and reach in contested areas such as the SCS35 With the cost of production dropping

and the technology increasing the number of RPA’s around the world will continue to increase.

The Second Artillery Force is in control of China’s nuclear arsenal. China joined the

nuclear club in 1964 with their first nuclear test. Their knowledge and experience his risen since

that time and they have the same delivery methods as the U.S and Russia, although at much

smaller numbers. China does not use the nuclear deterrent as a cornerstone of its defense

strategy; rather the use of nuclear weapons is strictly laid out in China’s strategic guidance and

highlighted in three key principals.

The first principal is that China will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear

weapons states. The second principal is that China will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a

conventional attack and the last principal, which is the most mentioned, is that China adheres to a

no first use policy36. This differs significantly from US policy which states: “the United States

will only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital

19

interests of the United States or its allies and partners”37. This difference has added to the distrust

already present regarding each countries intention especially over the US defense of Taiwan and

other regional matters. China’s nuclear weapons principals could be changing as the SCS

tensions increase and the numbers of nuclear weapons in China’s arsenal continue to rise.

The brief discussion of China’s military capability demonstrates that they are advancing

their technologies and military capabilities to be at a near peer/peer status with the US and

Russia. While there are many questions regarding China’s ability to survive in combat the same

can be said regarding the US arsenal against a peer adversary. Computer simulations, static

testing environments and defense industry officials can make military hardware look

phenomenal, but until it is actually combat validated against a peer adversary, many questions

will remain. The technological advantages the militaries once relied on are becoming a moot

point. With superior forces we deployed throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan we still

became a victim to political will and have been unable to eliminate the asymmetric forces in

those theaters. A well prepared and capable force is required at all times to defend the homeland

and our allies abroad, but this too presents a problem. Based on recent congressional testimony

from the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force, it would be difficult to conduct

sustained combat operations “against a lethal hybrid threat or near-peer adversary.38” All

branches of the US military are suffering from devastating effects of the Budget Control Act

(BCA) and estimate that any given time, only one third to one half of the force are combat

capable. China is well aware of the BCA and its effects on the military; it can assumed that they

are testing the limits of their actions in the region as they prepare for the US (economic and

military) policy shift to the Pacific.

20

China’s Expanding Territory

The SCS is made up of approximately 1.4 million miles of ocean with four main island

chains that each consist of hundreds if not thousands of tiny reefs or atoll’s. The Pratas, Parcel,

Spratly and Scarborough Islands are contested by China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan,

Vietnam Indonesia and Brunei.39. Within this area is the world busiest shipping zone, a vast

array of natural resources and competing claims to who is the rightful owner. With so much at

play, the issue is obviously a point of debate and contention amongst all involved. While some

agreements have been made between China and others regarding territorial disputes this is the

exception and not the norm.

40

The US Pivot to the Pacific comes at a vital time to ensure that the US has continued

presence and acts as a counterweight to the increasing Chinese diplomatic and military power in

the region41. The Chinese Government made a push to the United Nations in 2009 and again in

21

2011 that China’s maritime claims to the SCS are unquestionable and rooted in historical

evidence and legal proceedings42. China has never produced any information regarding their

claims but does refer to the map of 1947 commonly referred to as the nine-dash line. The dashes

on the map do not have coordinates, fixed geographical features or any other identifying features

to base the claims off of which is why it has created an international controversy.43 Some of the

areas claimed by China extend almost 1000 miles from the southernmost point of Chinese

territory; this is far beyond the established limits that are recognized by the United Nations

Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The UNCLOS is a roadmap that lays out protections and prohibitions on the use of the

oceans of the world. This framework was established in 1982 after intense debate that lasted

almost a decade. The UNCLOS went into effect in 1994 and like most other treaties it has almost

universal support. All of the aforementioned countries with the exception of Taiwan are

signatories of the law44. Taiwan was unable to sign as they are not a recognized state by the UN,

but they do adhere to the intent of the law. While the UNCLOS does state what can and cannot

be done involving oceans, it is flawed in the fact that is does not state how to resolve disputed

territory in regards to offshore islands. Under UNCLOS each costal state claimant has 12 miles

of territorial waters immediately adjacent to their shores that they can protect with military

means if necessary, subject to passage rights if conditions are met45. The UN complicated

matters when they change the treaty to include Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), which extend

outward to 200 nautical miles and guarantees the claimant exclusive rights to undersea resources

both living and non-living. This presents a problem for nation in that SCS region, as there are

overlapping claims in the narrower parts of the SCS.

22

The creation of man-made reefs has expanded at a rapid pace under President Jin. The

most visible and reported on in the media is the Spratly Island Chain where China has

transformed coral reefs into full military outposts complete with landing strips and A2/AD

capabilities. The US has contested Chinas Claim by sending over flights of military aircraft and

freedom of navigation sails by the navy in close proximity to the newly created landmasses.

Can the US Cooperate with China on Security Matters in the Region?

There is no hiding the facts that China is investing heavily in military capabilities in the

SCS to deter and defeat foreign power projection in the Western Pacific should a conflict occur

in the region46. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council big five

and a member of the original nations who possess known nuclear weapons. China downplays

their military advances and claims that they are just playing catch up to defend themselves

against other nations. As General Chen Brngde stated in a 2009 speech in Australia:

“A country embracing policies for peace, even though it has a robust military, will not wage war; but a belligerent country will, even though it is militarily weak. China maintains a defense policy which is defensive in nature, implements the military strategy of ‘active defense,’ and vigorously advocates the New Security Outlook of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination.47”

President Xi Jinping has made it well known to the world that he is revitalizing the

People’s Liberation Army and moving away from the isolationist model that they have

maintained for years. Replacing the old model will be a smaller, more agile, technologically

advanced expeditionary type of force. This force will be able to project Chinese power to all

points of the world much like the current US model. While the size and reach of their Navy is

years away from becoming an equal to that of the United States, they have taken concrete steps

to expand their maritime capabilities. Examples of China flexing their new maritime muscle

include China getting involved in anti-piracy operations of the coast of Africa starting in 2009

and conducting military training exercises with Russia in the Mediterranean. China also provided

23

naval escorts in a joint effort with several nations in the removal of chemical weapons out of

Syria and provided search and rescue efforts for the Malaysia Airlines incident. The Chinese

government has also garnered support agreements with Pakistan for a long-term port use for ship

repairs, fueling and other uses. The presence of Chinese Peacekeeping observers under the

United Nations flag is also on the rise, although the locations for such observers are in relatively

low US presence locations such as Darfur, Sudan and Lebanon.48

With China yearning to have a presence and ultimately influence in regions around the

world the question asked by many is can the US and China cooperate on security matters in the

Western Pacific? Much has been done in various arenas to promote cooperation on shared issues

of interest such as nuclear security matters in the region and civil space cooperation. A highlight

of this cooperation is the creation of a Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security in Beijing. This

center was the product of Department of Energy and China’s Atomic Energy Authority

collaboration and cooperation to share crosstalk amongst partners to highlight best practices and

share advanced technologies regarding nuclear security.49 The one area that has had minimal

agreement and cooperation on is the area of military cooperation. This theme continued until

2012 when then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta extended an invitation to China to participate in

the Rim of the Pacific military (RIMPAC) exercise. The exercise is the world’s largest

international maritime exercise involving nations with an interest in the Pacific region. China

accepted the invitation and eventually participated in the 2014 RIMPAC exercise mainly

focusing on the medical, anti-piracy, explosive ordinance disposal and gunnery exercises50.

While China did participate in RIMPAC they did so with a surveillance ship and didn’t bring

much to the exercise other than conducting surveillance on other nations who were participants.

24

The major stumbling block for the US regarding military to military cooperation with China is

the lack of transparency regarding China’s military buildup.

ANALYSIS

Why it Matters

Military theorists have viewed the Western Pacific as a strategic area of the world for

centuries. The benefits of the sea for economic transport yielded huge rewards for nations who

project power far beyond their boarders. Nations who control sea-lanes in contested territory

truly have an upper hand in all activities within the region. Navies that have fixed ports within a

region have an advantage due to the ease of repairs, replenishing and refueling stops. The

Western Pacific is chalked full of various ports that are friendly of US vessels although China is

creating fixed ports and new economic ties on a monthly basis within the region. The US has

never left the region and has always maintained strong diplomatic ties with many countries in the

region. One can say that the US took the region for granted from a military standpoint for several

decades while dealing with other matters that include the collapse of the US economy and

fighting simultaneous wars in the Middle East51. Many of our partner countries in the region

began to question the commitment of the US as China began to impose their will politically,

economically and militarily in the region. President Obama and his advisors saw this and made

the decision to flex out strength in the region by realigning troops towards the Pacific. This

included Marine Expeditionary Forces conducting 6-month rotations to Australia to increase

cooperation and training time with our counterparts. Others signs of increased military funding in

the Western Pacific include the re-investment in Guam and the various infrastructures at

Anderson AFB, Northwest Field, and Naval Base Guam. The Philippines has moved legislation

25

through their congress for an increased US military presence on the island and allocated the

former spaces at Subic Bay and Clark AFB for US use.

COURSES OF ACTION

Stay the Course

The US is at a precipice regarding the situation in the Western Pacific. We as a nation can

stand by and let the current back and forth go on with no resolution in sight of we can take

actions to preserve the US name and presence in the area. The debate over the military strategy

of the pivot or rebalance to Asia can be debated for years to come. President Obama made the

decision in 2011 to refocus our bearings on the region which we let slip away by being

complaisant and overconfident. China exploited the opportunity when the US left a crack in the

door and now we are faced with the daily headlines of peacocking in the Region by both nations.

Diplomatic Solutions

Looking deeper than the surface scratch into the dynamics of the Western Pacific power

struggle, it is much more involved than the two headline nations of the US and China. Nations

such as Australia, North and South Korea, Vietnam, Brunei the Philippines and many others all

have competing strategic interests in the region. The US acts as an intermediary in the region to

protect the vital shipping lanes that connect the Pacific to the India Ocean. The freedom of

navigation has been a constant message that the US proclaims whenever China protests foreign

vessels and militaries operating in their proclaimed territorial waters. This freedom of navigation

and controlling of a particular swath of sea is not a new premise but rather a centuries old theory

that was promoted by Naval Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan. Mahan proclaimed that the

“commercial value cannot be separated from military in sea strategy, for the greatest interest of

the sea is commerce52” All countries in the region want to protect the freedom of navigation in

26

the area although they all have differing position on how to accomplish this. The multilateral

foreign policy negotiators of all concerned nations need to engage on this topic and come to

some sort of agreement. Negotiations amongst a set of competing ideals and ideologies are one

of the most complex issues nations have to deal with on a daily basis. All sides involved need to

have a clear strategy of what they want, and what they are willing to give up to achieve their

goals and objectives.

Military Engagement

A military engagement between the US and China would have global consequences with

no real victor after the last shots be it bullets or cyber shots were fired. While China does claim

to have a sizable advantage in numbers of military personnel, the military equipment side of the

coin reveals another story. The US has an advantage in all equipment categories with the

exception of battle tanks and artillery. While numbers don’t take into account technology, the

technological advantage still lies with the US military.

27

CONCLUSION

The situation in the Western pacific is not going away anytime in the near future. With

numerous competing interests and potentially billions of dollars in untapped oil and gas reserves

among other resources it is obvious why there so much contention in the area. The situation is

unique for the US due to the fact that the closest US territory is nearly 2000 miles from the

Chinese mainland; we have a strategic interest in the region but no real “property” to claim. The

research question asked “how can the United States re-gain military influence with our strategic

partners and allies while gaining cooperation with China in the Western Pacific Theater of

Operations”? The answer to that is open communication, direct dialogue and the willingness to

use military force to achieve peace and stability in the region. The various US military bases in

the region are well within striking distance for the Chinese and they have publicly stated that

they have the developed weaponry to take out those threats first. While the US has always

maintained a military presence in the Western Pacific, the need for an increased presence in all

forms is what is needed in order to keep China in check as a rising power. China’s military rise is

directly tied to their economic rise on the world stage. The strength or weakness of the Chinese

economy is directly tied to the health of the global economy. As China increases their

manufacturing for the world their need for scarce resources is also on the rise. With the

dwindling supply of natural resources, the Chinese have viewed the SCS as an untapped reserve.

Various other competing nations also have claims in the SCS region and are dependent upon the

US to voice their concerns, and in many cases to provide the strategic umbrella for protection.

The US and China could revert back to a Cold War mentality where each side is pouring billions

into their military infrastructure, but that has serious implications for both countries in the fragile

world economy. The immediate concern is the daily interaction that both militaries are having in

28

the contested SCS region. China is increasingly upping the ante in regards to unsafe aerial

maneuvers around US surveillance planes, while their naval presence and interactions are also

increasing. China’s rhetoric continues to increase and if the current situation goes unchecked

without diplomatic intervention an unintended miscue on either side could have disastrous

implications for the world.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The proper mixture of diplomacy with military backing is the correct and measured

response to the increasing tension in the region. China is currently in legal battles with various

nations over their claims regarding the SCS. Despite this, China continues to flaunt their

engineering achievements of making habitable islands out of reef copings and immediately

militarizing the islands. A strong united front among all Asia Pacific nations is needed to

confront China and their bullying antics. Should a united front of diplomacy fail, then the

coalition should be ready to respond militarily. A military conflict would extend the militaries of

the Western Pacific to unprecedented levels. With China increasingly developing weapons

intended to deny or disrupt US intervention in the region, the US needs to be vigilant and ready

in its interactions with China. Many of the nations in the region rely on the US for support both

economically and militarily, if this is disrupted the tactical battle plan changes immensely. Some

of these changes could be in the form of military alliances with China’s neighbors, on the

northern and southern front. The US has strengthened its relationship with Mongolia over the

past several decades. The US conducts joint exercises with the Mongolians, but increased

economic support to Mongolia could open up new strategic fronts that would force China to

watch not only its eastern seafront but its northern border as well. On the southern border there

29

are several countries where the US could increase relation to include Bhutan, Nepal and Burma.

Fostering increased relationships in the area could be extremely beneficial in the years to come.

30

Appendix A

Acronyms and Abbreviations

A2/AD- Anti Access/ Area Denial

ASB-Air Sea Battle

BCA-Budget Control Act

DoD-Department of Defense

EEZ-Exclusive Economic Zone

PACOM-Pacific Command

PLA-People’s Liberation Army

PLAN-People’s Liberation Army Navy

PLAAF- People’s Liberation Army Air Force

PRC-People’s Republic of China

RIMPAC-Rim of the Pacific

ROC-Republic of China

SCS- South China Sea

TTP’s- Tactics, Techniques and Procedures

UNCLOS- United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea

WWII- World War II

31

End Notes

1 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary “Remarks By President Obama to the Australian Parliament”, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia. November 17, 2011. 2 Jan Van Tol, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich and Jim Thomas, Air-Sea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept, Special report (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010) x-xi. 3 Kadir Yildiz, et al., “Concepts for Air Supremacy & Essential Capabilities for Modern Air Superiority Assets,” (paper presented at 14th International Conference Scientific Research and Education in the Air Force (AFASES) in Brasov, Romania, 2012). 4 China’s Military Strategy, (Beijing, The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, May, 2015) 5 China Profile, http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Country=CN&. 6 S.N, “What’s Driving American firms overseas,” The Economist, 16 August 2015, accessed 6 June, 2016, http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9. 7 US Department of Defense, Pacific Command, “USPACOM Strategy,” accessed April 17, 2016, http://www.pacom.mil/AboutUSPACOM/USPACOMStrategy.aspx. 8 Ming, Liu, Northeast Asia Order after WWII: Continuity, Compliance, Power-Transition and Challenges, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 2, June 2015, 165. 9 Cairo Conference Press Release, November 1943, Released December 1, 1943, accessed May 6, 2016, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/cairo.asp. 10 Hoover Archives “Chinese Civil War”, accessed May 13 2016, https://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/China/Political%20Evolution/1932-49/index.html#nationalists. 11 US Department of State Office of the Historian “The Teheran Conference, 1943”, accessed 25 May 2016, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/tehran-conf. 12 Forest C. Pogue, George C. Marshal STATESMAN 1945-1959, Volume 4 (New York, NY: Viking, 1963-1987). 13 Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, “Tawian,” accessed May 8, 2016, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html. 14 US Department of State, accessed May 6, 2016, http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/. 15 David Sanger, “Philippines Orders U.S. to Leave Strategic Navy Base at Subic Bay.” New York Times, 28 December 1991. 16 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, communist,http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communist. 17 Focus on Asian Studies, Vol. IV, No. 1, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_leaders.htm#deng. 18 Wayne Morrison, China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges and Implications for the United States, CRS Report RL33534. 19 What does China really spend on its military,?” Center for Strategic& International Studies, accessed May 21, 2016, http://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/. 20 Wendell Minnick, “China’s Parade Puts US Navy on Notice,” Defense News.com, 3 September 2015, accessed 11 June 2016, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/09/03/chinas-parade-puts-us-navy-notice/71632918/. 21 Chris McCarthy, Anti-Access/Area Denial: The Evolution of Modern Warfare, https://www.usnwc.edu/Lucent/OpenPdf.aspx?id=95. 22 Center for Strategic& International Studies, “What does China really spend on its military,?” (Washington, DC). 23 Military Spending in 2013, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (sipri), (Solna, Sweeden). http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database (accessed May 21, 2016). 24 Ian E. Rinehart, The Chinese Military: Overview and Issues for Congress, CRS Report R44196, March 24, 2016. 25 Mark A. Stokes and Dean Cheng, Report for The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission: China’s Evolving Space Capabilities: Implications for US Interests (Project 249 Institute, 2012) 4. 26 Miles Maochun Yu, “China’s Ascendance To The Position Of Chief Adversary” Hoover Institution, January, 2016. 27 Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, “China,” Geography. (accessed May 22, 2016). 28 Office of Naval Intelligence, The PLA Navy New Capabilities and Missions for the 21st Century, 2015 ONI Report. 29 James Karotkin, Trends in China’s Naval Modernization, US China Economic and Security Review Commission Testimony, January 30, 2014. 30 Ronald O’Rourke, China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Navy Capabilities-Background and Issues for Congress, CRS Report, RL33153, March 31, 2016. 31 William C Hannas, James Mulvenon, Anna B. Puglisi, Chinese Industrial Espionage (Routeledge, 2013). 32 Robert Beckhusen, “How China’s expert fighter jet designer avoids Americas mistakes,” From War is Boring, August, 2015. 33 China’s Cyber-Theft Jet Fighter, The Wall Street Journal, 12 November 2014. 34 Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer, “Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20 Starts Production,” Popular Science, 28 December 2015.

32

35 Michael S. Chase, Kristen Gunness, Lyle J. Morris, Samuel K. Berkowitz and Benjamin Purser. Emerging Trends in China's Development of Unmanned Systems. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR990.html. 36 Gregory Kulacki, The Chinese military Updates China’s Nuclear Strategy, Union of Concerned Scientists Report, March 2015. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/chinese-nuclear-strategy-full-report.pdf. 37 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States. 19 June 2013. ” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/fact-sheet-nuclear-weapons-employment-strategy-united-states. 38 House Armed Services Committee, “The Hill: Experts Warn Weapons gap is Shrinking Between US, Russia and China,” 2 May, 2016. https://armedservices.house.gov/news/press-releases/hill-experts-warn-weapons-gap-shrinking-between-us-russia-and-china. 39 Clive Schofield and Ian Storey, “The South China Sea Dispute” Increasing Stakes and Rising Tensions” (The Jamestown Foundation, November 2009. 40 Department of Defense, 2012, “Sovereignty Claim’s and Agreements in the South China Sea” South China Sea Online Resource, http://www.southchinasea.org/maps/territorial-claims-maps/. 41 Patrick M. Cronin and Robert D. Kaplan, “Introduction,” in Cooperation from Strength: The United States, China, and the South China Sea, ed. Patrick M. Cronin (Washington DC: Center for a New American Security, 2012), 7. 42 US Department of State, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, “Limits in the Seas, No. 143, Maritime Claims in the South China Sea,” 2014, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf (Accessed 25 May 16), 3. 43 Jeffrey A. Bader, “The US and China’s Nine-Dash Line: Ending the Ambiguity,” Brookings Institution, 6 February, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/06-us-china-nine-dash-line-bader. 44 UN Treaties Collection, Status of Treaties, https://treaties.un.org. 45 Ibid., Part III UNCLOS. 46 US Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2105. 47 Speech by General Chen Bingde at Australian Defense College, 2009, http://au.china-embassy.org/eng/wgc/t621040.htm. 48 Degang Sun “China’s Soft Military Presence in the Middle East” Middle East Studies Institute, March 11, 2015, http://www.mei.edu/content/map/china%E2%80%99s-soft-military-presence-middle-east (accessed May 16, 2016). 49 US Department of Energy, “U.S. Energy Secretary Moniz and Chinese Atomic Energy Authority Open New Nuclear Security Training Facility” http://energy.gov/articles/us-energy-secretary-moniz-and-chinese-atomic-energy-authority-open-new-nuclear-security. 50 US Department of State, Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2014: A Multinational Maritime Exercise, http://fpc.state.gov/228504.htm. 51 Kurt Campbell and Brian Andrews, Explaining the US ‘Pivot’ to Asia, Presented at The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House, August 2013. http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/194019 (accessed 30 May 2015). 52 Alfred Thayer Mahan, Naval Strategy Compared and Contrasted with the Principles and Practice of Military Operations on Land (1911; repr. Boston: Little, Brown, 1915), p 302.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

33

Asia for Educators. “Three Chinese Leaders: Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and Deng Xiaoping,”

Columbia University, 2009. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1950_leaders.htm#deng.

Bader Jeffery. “The US and China’s Nine-Dash Line: Ending the Ambiguity.” Brookings Institution, 6 February, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/06-us-china-nine-dash-line-bader.

Beckhusen, Robert. “How China’s expert fighter jet designer avoids Americas mistakes,” From War is Boring, August, 2015. http://theweek.com/articles/569274/how-chinas-expert-fighter-jet-designer-avoids-americas-mistakes.

Bindge, Gen Chen. “Advancing China and the Chinese Military.” Address. Australian Defense College, October 16, 2009.

Cairo Conference Press release, November 1943, released December 1, 1943. . http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/cairo.asp.

Campbell Kurt, and Andrews Brian. Explaining the US ‘Pivot’ to Asia, Presented at The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, August 2013, http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/194019.

Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact book, China. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html.

Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact book, Tawian. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html.

Chase, Michael S., Kristen Gunness, Lyle J. Morris, Samuel K. Berkowitz and Benjamin Purser. Emerging Trends in China's Development of Unmanned Systems, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR990.html.

China’s Cyber-Theft Jet Fighter, The Wall Street Journal, 12 November 2014. http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-cyber-theft-jet-fighter-1415838777.

China’s Military Strategy. Chinese government white paper. Beijing, The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, May, 2015.

Cronin Patrick M., and Kaplan Robert. Cooperation from Strength: The United States, China and the South China Sea. Washington D.C.: Center for a New American Security, 2012.

Department of Defense, “Sovereignty Claim’s and Agreements in the South China Sea”South China Sea online resource. http://www.southchinasea.org/maps/territorial-claims-maps/.

34

Department of Defense, Pacific Command, “USPACOM Strategy,”

http://www.pacom.mil/AboutUSPACOM/USPACOMStrategy.aspx.

Department of Defense. Annual Report to Congress, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016. April 26, 2016. http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2016%20China%20Military%20Power%20Report.pdf.

Department of State, Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, “Limits in the Seas, No. 143, Maritime Claims in the South China Sea,” 2014. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/234936.pdf.

Floyd, Vice Admiral Kenneth. Interview by The Washington Foreign Press Center, 1 July 2014. Transcript. http://fpc.state.gov/228504.htm.

Hannas, William C, James Mulvenon, and Anna B. Puglisi. Chinese Industrial Espionage (Routeledge, 2013).

History. Hoover Archives, “Chinese Civil War,” https://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/China/Political%20Evolution/1932-49/index.html#nationalists.

History. U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, “The Teheran Conference, 1943,” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/tehran-conf.

House Armed Services Committee, “The Hill: Experts Warn Weapons gap is Shrinking Between US, Russia and China,” 2 May, 2016. https://armedservices.house.gov/news/press-releases/hill-experts-warn-weapons-gap-shrinking-between-us-russia-and-china.

Karotkin, James Trends in China’s Naval Modernization, US China Economic and Security Review Commission Testimony, 2014. http://www.uscc.gov/Hearings/hearing-china%E2%80%99s-military-modernization-and-its-implications-united-states.

Kulacki, Gregory. The Chinese military Updates China’s Nuclear Strategy, Union of Concerned Scientists Report, March 2015. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/chinese-nuclear-strategy-full-report.pdf.

Lin, Jeffrey and P.W. Singer, “Chinese Stealth Fighter J-20 Starts Production,” Popular Science, 28 December 2015. http://www.popsci.com/chinese-stealth-fighter-j-20-starts-production.

Mahan, Thayer Alfred, Naval Strategy Compared and Contrasted with the Principles and Practice of Military Operations on Land. Boston: Little Brown, 1915.

35

McCarthy, Major Christopher. “Anti-Access/Area Denial: The Evolution of Modern Warfare.”

https://www.usnwc.edu/Lucent/OpenPdf.aspx?id=95

Merriam-Webster. “Definition of Communist.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communist

Ming Liu. “Northeast Asia Order after WWII: Continuity, Compliance, Power-Transition and Challenges,” The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 2, June 2015, 165.

Minnick Wendell. “China’s parade Puts US navy on Notice.” Defense News, 3 September 2015. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/09/03/chinas-parade-puts-us-navy-notice/71632918/.

Morrison Wayne, M. China’s Economic Rise: History, Trends, Challenges, and Implications for the United States. Congressional Research Service, October 21, 2015. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33534.pdf.

O’Rourke, Ronald. China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Navy Capabilities-Background and Issues for Congress, CRS Report, RL33153, March 31, 2016. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf.

Office of Naval Intelligence, The PLA Navy New Capabilities and Missions for the 21st Century, 2015. https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015_PLA_NAVY_PUB_Print.pdf.

Pogue Forest C and Marshal, George C., STATESMAN 1945-1959, Volume 4. New York: Viking, 1963-1987.

Rineheart Ian, E. The Chinese Military: Overview and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, March 24, 2016. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44196.pdf

S.N. ““What’s Driving American firms overseas,” The Economist, 16 August 2015, http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9.

Sanger David, E. “Philippines Orders U.S. to Leave Strategic Navy Base at Subic Bay.” New York Times, 28 December 1991. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/28/world/philippines-orders-us-to-leave-strategic-navy-base-at-subic-bay.html?pagewanted=1.

Schofield, Clive and Ian Storey, “The South China Sea Dispute” Increasing Stakes and Rising Tensions,” The Jamestown Foundation, November 2009.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute “Military Spending in 2013.”

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “SIPRI estimates for China.” https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex/sources-and-methods .

36

Sun Deng. “China’s Soft Military Presence in the Middle East” Middle East Studies Institute,

March 11, 2015. http://www.mei.edu/content/map/china%E2%80%99s-soft-military-presence-middle-east.

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary “Remarks By President Obama to the Australian Parliament”, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia. November 17, 2011. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/17/remarks-president-obama-australian-parliament.

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “FACT SHEET: Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States. 19 June 2013. ” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/fact-sheet-nuclear-weapons-employment-strategy-united-states.

U.S Department of State. U.S. Collective Defense Agreements. http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/

U.S. Department of Energy. “U.S. Energy Secretary Moniz and Chinese Atomic Energy Authority Open New Nuclear Security Training Facility”. Accessed May 16, 2016. http://energy.gov/articles/us-energy-secretary-moniz-and-chinese-atomic-energy-authority-open-new-nuclear-security

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. UN Treaty, 10 December 1982. https://treaties.un.org

Van Tol, Jan, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew Krepinevich and Jim Thomas, “AirSea Battle-A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept”, Special Report (Washington D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010)

World Trade Organization. “ China Country Profile.” http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Country=CN&

Yildiz Kadir, Bicil Murat, Akkaya Sadik and Istek, Yavuz. “Concepts for Air Supremacy & Essential Capabilities for Modern Air Superiority Assets,” (paper presented at 14th International Conference Scientific Research and Education in the Air Force (AFASES) in Brasov, Romania, 2012).